[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The business rejected them ultimately because of their sexuality.

You can't twist this situation into being different than the cake situation, if that situation was fine and dandy then no one who believes that the bakery situation was resolved correctly can complain about this at all.

This is just blatantly UNTRUE. The bakery served other Gay customers but objected to the message on this specific cake order.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is just blatantly UNTRUE. The bakery served other Gay customers but objected to the message on this specific cake order.

Yes, they rejected the order based on their homophobic views. Your trying to change the wording but you can't change the meaning.

You can't agree with people rejecting customers because of their homophobia and then oppose someone rejecting custom from a government official because they disagree with the direction the government is going.

That's picking and choosing. If you agree with the former, you can't oppose the latter.

[Maru]

Imo, if we just keep up with the -phobics, -ist labels... that will lead to the opposite intended result come election time. Those attitudes are already starting to backfire and will lead to those folk who act with indignance to find themselves further isolated...

There are all kinds of worldviews in the world we share with other ppl and we can focus on only just one, and probably inconvenient to have to bother with anyone elses, but I feel like that is living with head in the clouds and only harmful to that person /w a narrow view. Just because we see it our way doesn't mean there aren't other ppl who see another... bigotry to me is being spiteful/venomous towards others when we refuse to accept ppl who outside our own culture. The business owner was following his deeply held religious beliefs... and there is no indication his purpose was malicious here. Just to reiterate, but to try to force our own worldviews will only lead to activists further isolating themselves... will only make them miserable as ppl will eventually move on.

I'm fine w the owner kicking out Sanders. We share the world with other ppl, it is not all about us... to live in a world where we have to only accomodate to one group though is not only an unrealistic way of thinking, but is a one-sided worldview. Anyway, the more I hear this rhetoric, the less I care... eventually just won't bother with it anymore to assist those movements which have become so self-referential. It is just not worth it, pleasing those folk anymore. I believe in treating people with humility and tolerance.. not venomous rhetoric.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

Imo, if we just keep up with the -phobics, -ist labels... that will lead to the opposite intended result come election time. Those attitudes are already starting to backfire and will lead to those folk who act with indignance to find themselves further isolated...

There are all kinds of worldviews in the world we share with other ppl and we can focus on only just one, and probably inconvenient to have to bother with anyone elses, but I feel like that is living with head in the clouds and only harmful to that person /w a narrow view. Just because we see it our way doesn't mean there aren't other ppl who see another... bigotry to me is being spiteful/venomous towards others when we refuse to accept ppl who outside our own culture. The business owner was following his deeply held religious beliefs... and there is no indication his purpose was malicious here. Just to reiterate, but to try to force our own worldviews will only lead to activists further isolating themselves... will only make them miserable as ppl will eventually move on.

I'm fine w the owner kicking out Sanders. We share the world with other ppl, it is not all about us... to live in a world where we have to only accomodate to one group though is not only an unrealistic way of thinking, but is a one-sided worldview. Anyway, the more I hear this rhetoric, the less I care... eventually just won't bother with it anymore to assist those movements which have become so self-referential. It is just not worth it, pleasing those folk anymore. I believe in treating people with humility and tolerance.. not venomous rhetoric.

I really dislike this thought process. It downplays the struggles of people who aren't the majority by making out that we must appease the majority and that's wrong.

What you are endorsing is appeasement.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I really dislike this thought process. It downplays the struggles of people who aren't the majority by making out that we must appease the majority and that's wrong.

What you are endorsing is appeasement.

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

AWESOME.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

Then we should make it clear in constitution or wherever that religion trumps equality and be done with it.
Would you defend if someone had a religion that made him discriminate racially? And refuse to bake cakes for black people? Would you deploy the same arguments how those seeking equality disturb, distress and don't care?
Also, why do you say "there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way of life"?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Then we should make it clear in constitution or wherever that religion trumps equality and be done with it.
Would you defend if someone had a religion that made him discriminate racially? And refuse to bake cakes for black people? Would you deploy the same arguments how those seeking equality disturb, distress and don't care?
Also, why do you say "there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way of life"?

Religion is protected in the Constitution, that's why they had won the ruling. Escaping religious persecution has always been a huge factor for people immigrating to the States.

Race itself is a protected class so no, that wouldn't be expected to fly. Eventually sexual preference will make itself into there as well. The baker though didn't discriminate against them on the basis of their homosexuality. The disagreement was that their practice (same-sex marriage) came into conflict with his practices, so he couldn't play a part in that ritual. It would be like if someone walked in and wanted food for a cake featuring a celebrating eating and devouring a specific animal and the baker would maybe have to decline because the animal was a spiritual God, etc. The concept of Man+Woman is a sacred union in Christianity and marriage is considered a religious practice, just as sex is considered a sacred practice. That's why we don't really see any orthodox Christians working at adult sex shops. (Editx9000)

Anyway, it would be difficult to find a reasonably-sized religion that discriminates on the basis of race. Just because, how else would that religion thrive if it's narrowing that much it's potential pool of worshipers... It would be a failed experiment at best...

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

Youtube video

Why is it the minority that always has to bend their will to make sure the majority remain comfortable? Why couldn't black people just be happy to use different water fountains, and was their challenge to the hierarchy also bigotry disguised as a pursuit for tolerance, in your language?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

Nah, it's appeasement.